On Mon, Feb 13, 2006, Bill Campbell wrote:
> I would like to suggest that any %{l_shtool} subst subsitutions don't
> belong in the %setup section, but properly belong at the beginning of the
> %build section.
>
> IHMO, the %setup section should only be for loading sources and applying
> patches. Putting processing like substitutions in it makes the job of
> building new patches more difficult as one cannot just to an ``rpm -bp''
> operation to get clean sources from which one can generate diffs.
Yes and no. Yes, because you're right, they make trouble and always
have to be proceeded with an "exit 0" temporarily (that's what I do).
No, because one could argue that substitutions are just a different
technique of patching the sources and hence should be grouped together
with the patch files.
Although I usually always prefer consistency and grouping (where I would
bundle "shtool subst" and "%patch"), I personally also tend to agree
with you, Bill.
I also think the %prep sections should only contain %setup and %patch
commands because (1) that's how the %prep section AFAIK was intended
for by the RPM authors (2) the %prep section and especially its %setup
macro is REALLY DEEP magic (e.g. its expanded "cd" part is sticky and
automatically duplicates into all other sections, etc) and (3) it also
simplifies the developer tasks.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
